Ron Paul, A Force for Peace
Monday, December 19, 2011 at 4:17PMIowa polling for now shows Rep. Ron Paul leading the Republican pack. Peace and justice advocates should re-examine the profound establishment demonizing of Paul’s “isolationism” and realize that the Congressman represents a genuine strain of opposition to empire – in the long tradition of populism and progressivism, Robert LaFoillette and Mark Twain.
Yes, Paul’s classic libertarianism leads him to seriously retro positions, like the right of private lunch-counter owners in the Sixties to deny service to anyone. For that reason alone, I would vote for Barack Obama over Paul in a general election.
But we are talking about Iowa here, about keeping Paul’s voice alive through the Republican primaries. Progressives and Democrats should want Barack Obama to feel compelled to pursue Ron Paul voters and organizers in the general campaign ahead. That is why many young people, independents and peace Democrats – even Occupy supporters - are considering voting in the Iowa primary for Paul.
Paul opposes the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the buildup toward war with Iran. He opposes the empire of military bases. He opposes Wall Street thievery, tax subsidies for oil companies, the suppression of WikiLeaks, the drug war and the criminalization of marijuana. Those positions might just save America.
Reader Comments (7)
In light of this:
"Paul opposes the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He opposes the empire of military bases. He opposes Wall Street thievery, tax subsidies for oil companies, the suppression of WikiLeaks, the drug war and the criminalization of marijuana. Those positions might just save America."
I think you should reconsider this:
"Yes, Paul’s classic libertarianism leads him to seriously retro positions, like the right of private lunch-counter owners in the Sixties to deny service to anyone. For that reason alone, I would vote for Barack Obama over Paul in a general election."
Liberty is a state of independence from government control. Sometimes people do things under conditions of liberty that are ignorant and belligerent, but that is much better than a total state who would like to run all aspects of society. If a business is to deny service, or disallow employment to a set of the population- they are likely doomed to fail in the long run, as other businesses who are more open-minded take that talent and customer base from them. Ron Paul stands for liberty and peace for all, whilst Barack W. Obama is a continuation (and expansion) of the total state- war, looting, and destruction.
Let's see. "Paul opposes the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He opposes the empire of military bases. He opposes Wall Street thievery, tax subsidies for oil companies, the suppression of WikiLeaks, the drug war and the criminalization of marijuana." You might throw in that he is one of the very few in Congress opposed to the civil liberties destroying Patriot Act, as well as one of the very few who opposed the just passed (and signed by Obama) Defense Authorization Act with its "indefinite detention" of anyone anywhere without charges. But his downside, so horrific you'd vote for Obama is that he favors "the right of private lunch-counter owners in the Sixties to deny service to anyone". So, the lying butcher Obama, who let us not forget promised to end these murderous mideast wars upon entering office has turned out to be Bush in blackface. You'd rather re-elect Obama, who will continue to kill innocent Musliom families by the score with his drone strikes and abject support for the military industrial complex than Paul simply over differing opinions regarding the right of use to private lunch counters. Come on. Get real. Could you possibly find a more absurd non-issue. How many people are going to get turned away from a lunch counter these days for racial reasons. Even if a few are, how could that possibly compare to the monstrous evil of Obama murdering thousands of Muslims. Man, you need to get your priorities straight.
Mr Hayden, I find it very ironic that you oppose the use of force in war, but condone it against the business owners. Did making stupid prejudice (I repeat myself) change because of law, or because of persuasion? In the end, society advances when people are persuaded to freely do the right thing, and diminished when they must merely obey yet one more arbitrary law. I think Ron Paul is also right, therefore, in his "retro" views, because he is actually taking the long view of things. Persuasion is always better than force, unless a life is in imminent danger.
Excellent post Mr. Hayden. You make the statement: "Yes, Paul’s classic libertarianism leads him to seriously retro positions, like the right of private lunch-counter owners in the Sixties to deny service to anyone. For that reason alone, I would vote for Barack Obama over Paul in a general election."
Let me ask you this: If a known KKK member walked into an African-American owned restaurant, would you insist the law must prevent the owner from denying service?
There is increasing evidence that Dr. Paul conciously associated with and recruited white supremacists and ant-semites to his campaigns. While I respect your view and that of Andrew Sullivan that Paul's views on foreign policy can counter the neo-con dominance of the GOP i am skeptical that they will have a lasting impact. He needs to clearly repudiate the racism within the movement he leads.
This is one of the only intelligent, politically strategic responses to this election year, which has already sunk to new depths of political discourse. I plan to re-register Republican so as to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, in hopes of seeing him debating Obama in the presidential debates which will, of course, exclude Third Parties. Ron Paul represents the only challenge to perpetual war, the war economy, and "the empire of bases" that's getting much coverage.
After the Republican primary, I plan to re-register Green to vote for Dr. Jill Stein. The Green Party has to have a presidential candidate in order to have a ballot line in local races in many states, so I'm giving Jill Stein my support in the general election for mounting a protest campaign and making it possible for more local Greens to run for school boards, transit boards, local environmental regulatory boards, and state, county, and municipal office.
We have to admit finally that we live under a quasi-military dictatorship. We Sixties activists have long-known this to be the case, or at least the coming attraction. I recall the words of President Eisenhower: "God help the United States of America, if a man ever occupies this office, who does not understand the military." This seems to be the case with President Obama. He doesn't understand that the military is the dominant actor in this country, and will do what it wants, regardless of presidential opposition or public opinion. Ron Paul, if he ever wins the White House, will face the same problem; he will not be able to deflect the military from its plans, because of the broad support of Congress, the pressure from so-called conservative "think tanks," and the federal bureaucracy, and the pressure on politicians to keep their jobs. I don't see any way to stop the war hawks from bombing Iran and sparking a wider and worse war, especially not with the ongoing, irrational and uncooperative acts of the Iranian leadership, which pours gasoline onto a smouldering issue, provoking more of the same. This situation is already out of control. The march to war against Iran is in the staging phase, as unstoppable as the invasion of Normandy. Short of occupying the White House, Congress, and all federal departments with a million demonstrators in DC, all the Left can do is continue with its failed strategy of protest demonstrations, petitions, networking, coalition-building, written articles, and letter-writing campaigns. If Obama put his foot down and tried to do half of what the Left and Ron Paul wants--dismantling overseas military bases, legalizing marijuana, ending the Fed, and so on--he would be assassinated, like other powerful public figures that unsuccessfully defied the military.